It’s Not Up to the Voters

Many ludicrous excuses for the Senate’s taking no action were offered during the non-impeachment trial of Donald Trump. One that superficially sounds sensible is the argument that “the voters should decide.” But this is categorically wrong. The responsibility lies squarely with the Senate, and they have, for the second time, passed the buck onto us.

The first time, of course, was when the Senate refused to even consider the Garland nomination. “Let the people decide,” they said. But the people had decided—they elected Barack Obama, twice. It was his prerogative—and his responsibility—to nominate a candidate for Supreme Court Justice, and the Senate’s responsibility to advise and consent. They did neither.

The latest abdication is even more pernicious, and requires an even greater sleight of hand. It pretends to follow the long tradition that if the voters find an official objectionable, they should “throw the rascal out.” This advice can cover a wide range of concerns from policy disagreements, incompetence, lack of attention to duty, making unworthy appointments, personal scandals, and even petty corruption. 

But the accusations against Trump are far more serious, and have led the House to issue articles of impeachment, analogous to an indictment. This demands a trial. In any other situation, a trial would follow rigorous procedures, require a jury compelled to consider all the evidence, and a neutral judge to make sure the rules are followed and to instruct the jury on the law.

Now imagine if I were arrested for a serious crime and demanded that my guilt or innocence be determined not by a court of law but by a vote among the general public, none of whom would be required to study the facts or the law. They could read about the case in whatever media they chose, or none at all. In other words, I could opt for a popularity contest.

This is the nub of the question. The Senate is charged with determining whether Trump had committed an impeachable offense. We all know that this is a two-part question—what had he done, and did it rise to that level? They scrupulously avoided delving deeply into his activity. And they deftly side-stepped an adult discussion about whether seeking foreign assistance in an election and rejecting all Congressional subpoenas should be considered high crimes. 

But an election is not a trial established to decide guilt or innocence. It’s a choice between two or more candidates for office. There can be many reasons to oppose Trump, not just that you believe he committed an impeachable offence. And there can be many reasons to vote for him rather than an opponent regardless of whether you feel he is guilty or not.

We live in a representative republic in which we delegate most governmental decision-making to those we elect or are selected by those we elect. While we do entertain occasional ballot initiatives, referenda, and recalls of officials, these are rare exceptions, hardly a drop in the ocean of legislation. 

Pretending an election can double as some sort of trial is absurd. For our elected representatives to delegate their responsibilities to the population at large is not only irresponsible, it runs counter to our very foundation as a representative republic. Perhaps they just don’t want to keep it, Mr. Franklin.